| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I need some independent input on how it could be improved. Right now, I have assessed it as a C-class article, but I am curious if there is any small tweek or update that would push forward to be considered for B, GA, A, or (eventually) F. I would appreciate a detailed review analysis once comeplete so I can know what needs work most.
Thanks, Novus Orator 02:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Sounds like an interetsing theory, but I think this needs a lot of work before it would even have a chance at passing WP:GAN. Here are some suggestions for improvement.
- The external links checker in the Toolbox on this page finds at least five dead external links and several more that are likely dead or at least problematic.
- The article has a disputed neutrality banner - this is enough to disqualify it from receiving a peer review, and would be a quick fail at GAN or FAC.
- References are a curious mix of inline cites and direct external links. The ELs all need to be converted to inline citations.
- Many of the refs cited do not have complete information needed. For example, internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
- Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase.
- A few places need refs - the tables in Heim's Predictions for Experimental Masses do not seem to have any source listed, and sentences like A further prediction of Heim-Dröscher theory shows how a different arrangement of the experiment by Tajmar et al. could produce a vertical force against the direction of the Earth's gravity. need a ref too. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
- Article does not follow WP:ITALIC and is not internally consistent - Extended Heim Theory and Selector calcululus are italicized in the lead, but not elsewhere.
- The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself, but dark matter is only in the lead.
- The article has a lot of short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that interrupt the flow. These should be combined with others or perhaps expanded
- History section should tell who Heim was, when he developed the theory, etc.
- WP:See also says the See also section is generally not for links that are already in the article.
- Make sure that sources used meet relaible sources guidelines - blogs and such generally do not.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours,